Small carbonated beverage packaging with enhanced shelf life properties

ABSTRACT

This disclosure provides new containers, preforms, methods, and designs for small and light-weight carbonated beverage packaging that provide surprisingly improved carbonation retention and greater shelf life, while still achieving light weight. This disclosure is particularly drawn to small PET containers for carbonated beverages, for example less than or about 400 mL, and methods and designs for their fabrication that attain unexpectedly good carbonation retention and shelf life.

CROSS REFERENCE TO RELATED APPLICATIONS

This application claims the benefit of priority from U.S. ProvisionalApplication No. 62/032,428, filed Aug. 1, 2014, which is incorporatedherein by reference in its entirety.

TECHNICAL FIELD

This disclosure relates to small and light-weight beverage packagingsuitable for use with carbonated beverages and having good gas barrierproperties.

BACKGROUND

Polyester and particularly polyethylene terephthalate (PET) containershave been used for packaging beverages such as carbonated soft drinks(CSD) for many years. Over this time, container designs have beenimproved and optimized for increasingly lighter weights andaffordability. The resin compositions, polymer properties, selectedadditives, and container designs have all been adjusted for maintainingor improving carbonation retention. Good carbonation retention has beenkey to improving shelf life of the carbonated product, but achievingthis goal has become increasingly difficult with lighter weight bottledesigns.

Factors contributing to shelf life include permeation, creep, sorptionand closure loss, the latter related to both permeation and leakage.Each of these parameters is dependent on a variety of properties. Forexample, permeation is generally dependent on material characteristicssuch as the percent (%) crystallinity, orientation, surface area, andmaterial thickness. Creep is primarily determined by container geometryand material distribution. Sorption is related to the amount of gas(CO₂) that can dissolve in the PET itself and is dependent on both theamount (g) of PET available as well as its crystallinity. Closure lossis generally determined by the available closure surface area forpermeation and leakage.

Particular problems with carbonation retention arise when packagingcarbonated beverages in small bottles that are generally about 300 mL orless. Conventional fabrication methods for small packages usually scaledown to a standard larger bottle design proportionally and reduce theamount of polymer used to make the small container and its preform.However, attempts to make smaller bottles with this approach oftenresult in greater volume to surface area to volume ration than expectedand a degraded shelf life. Therefore, there is a need for better bottledesigns and methods that are useful for CSDs, particularly to providesmall bottles that have shelf life properties that are practical forcommercial use and in harsh, particularly hot, climates. It wouldpreferable if such new bottle designs and methods could be applicable toa variety of container polymers such as nylons and nylon blends, and notjust to PET containers. It would also be preferable if the new bottledesigns and methods could be applicable to bottles that included barrierlayers or coatings (internal or external) and/or multilayer containers.

SUMMARY

This disclosure provides generally new PET containers, methods, anddesigns for packaging carbonated beverages that provide surprisinglyimproved carbonation retention properties and greater shelf life, whileachieving light weight, regardless of whether internal and/or externalcoatings are used. This disclosure is particularly drawn to small PETcontainers for carbonated beverages, for example less than or about 400mL, with or without internal and/or external coatings, and methods anddesigns for their fabrication that attain unexpectedly good carbonationretention and shelf life. Preforms for the new containers are alsoprovided, and methods for fabricating the novel PET bottles from thepreforms are disclosed. This disclosure also describes bottles andmethods affording improved creep performance, crystallinity, increasingthe weight distribution efficiency (WDE), and design and shapeoptimization.

“Light weighting” a container reduces the total weight of polymer usedto prepare the container, and while it often diminishes performance dueto thinner container walls, this performance reduction is usuallypredictable and can be balanced by controlling the total polymer weight.However, particular problems arise when applying standard lightweighting methods to small bottles that are generally about 400 mL orless, for example about 360 mL or less, as carbonation retention andshelf life suffer in a less predictable and more severe manner.

It has now been discovered that carbonation retention and shelf life canbe dramatically improved, particularly with small (≦about 300 mL)containers, by increasing the weight distribution efficiency (WDE) ofthe container, that is, the extent to which how uniformly the weight isdistributed over the entire container. This translates to matching theweight percentage and surface area percentage of each section of theentire container. It has also been unexpectedly discovered that whengood weight distribution efficiency (WDE) of the container is combinedwith minimizing the proportion of amorphous (un-oriented) polymer,carbonation retention and shelf life are further improved beyond whatone of ordinary skill would have expected. That is, specific andunexpected causes of diminished carbonation retention and reduced shelflife for small containers have been ascertained, and methods to overcomethese problems have been discovered. The design and shape optimizationsdisclosed herein have also been found to provide improved creepperformance. Unexpected and significant improvement in coatingperformance were observed when coatings were used in combination withthe design and shape optimized bottles, as compared to coated bottleswithout shape and creep minimization at very low weights.

According to other aspects, it was further unexpectedly discovered thatachieving high weight distribution efficiencies (WDE) and lowproportions of amorphous or un-oriented material in the container,particularly in small containers, could be achieved by selectivelyreducing the amount of material in the preform neck straight,particularly when combined with reducing the diameter of the finish andthe container opening. By “selectively” reducing the amount of materialin the preform neck straight, the amount of material in the preform neckstraight is reduced in higher proportion or percentage as compared tosome other sections of the preform when the overall bottle is lightweighted. This reduction of material works well when it is accompaniedby reducing the diameter of the finish and container opening. Thesefeatures are thought to contribute to achieving the low proportions ofamorphous or un-oriented material in the container and the high weightdistribution efficiencies (WDE), which leads to better carbonationretention and shelf life.

Further, it has also been unexpectedly discovered that selectivelyreducing the amount of material in the preform end cap in preference toother sections of the preform also contributes to achieving the lowproportions of amorphous or un-oriented material and improved (higher)weight distribution efficiencies (WDE) in the container. Again, by“selectively” reducing the amount of material in the preform end cap,the amount of material in the end cap is reduced in higher proportion orpercentage as compared to some other sections of the preform when theoverall bottle is light weighted. This reduction of the amount materialworks well by reducing the diameter of the end cap and generally thepreform body. These features are also thought to contribute to achievingthe low proportions of amorphous or un-oriented material (and thereforeincreased crystalline content) in the container and the high weightdistribution efficiencies (WDE), which affords better carbonationretention and shelf life.

According to a further aspect, selectively reducing the amount ofmaterial in both the preform neck straight and the preform end cap canachieve the low proportions of amorphous or un-oriented material (andtherefore higher proportion of crystalline material) in the containerand improved (higher) weight distribution efficiencies (WDE) in thecontainer, and therefore affords improved carbonation retention andshelf life. While not intending to be bound by theory, this discovery ofpreform design parameters that led to enhanced shelf life in the stretchblow-molded container is thought to arise at least in part because theamount of un-stretched material in the neck straight and/or end cap havebeen limited or reduced with improved weight distribution efficiency(WDE), which accordingly enhances both the crystallinity (low amounts ofamorphous polymer), orientation and provides lower overall weight. Thus,with a smaller preform OD, a higher stretch (both inside and outsidehoop Stretch Ratio (SR)) is obtained, which results in increasedcrystallinity as measured using density gradient column as well asincreased orientation.

In aspects of this disclosure, there are provided new containers,preforms, and methods that improve the overall weight distributionefficiency (WDE) of the container. This feature provides improved shelflife for containers such as polyethylene terephthalate (PET) containersused for packaging carbonated soft drinks (CSD).

According to this disclosure, there is provided a preform for acarbonated soft drink (CSD) container having an internal surface and anexternal surface, the preform comprising

a) a polymer monolayer or multilayer;

b) a neck finish less than or about 25 mm (T dimension); and

c) a preform outside body diameter (OD) less than or about 19 mm,measured at the portion of the preform body immediately adjacent the endcap; and further

d) the preform or CSD container can include or can be absent an internaland/or an external barrier coating to provide gas barrier enhancementsfor CO₂, O₂ and other gases within and without the container.

In an aspect, this preform can weigh less than or about 13 g and acontainer fabricated from the preform can have a volume less than orequal to 400 mL. By indicating that the preform outside diameter (OD) ismeasured at the portion of the preform body immediately adjacent the endcap, it is intended that when measuring the preform outside diameter,the measurement is made on the preform body, but as close to the end capas possible before encountering any curvature associated with the endcap, as illustrated in the figures. In further aspects, the polymer ofthe preform can comprise or can be made of a nylon, a polyester, or apolyamide, including various blends and co-polymers thereof. Forexample, the polymer can comprises or can be made of a material selectedfrom nylon MXD6, a nylon blend comprising nylon MXD6, PET,poly(trimethylene furan-2,5-dicarboxylate) (PTF), also calledpolypropylene furan-2,5-dicarboxylate) (PPF), poly(trimethyleneterephthalate) (PTT), a polyethylene naphthalate (PEN)/PET co-polymer, aPEN and PET blend, a poly Glycolic Acid (PGA), PEF, and PET blend.

According to aspects of this disclosure, the preform, such as thepreform described immediately hereinabove, can further comprise any oneor more of the following properties:

a) a Finish ID/Preform OD Ratio from about 0.9 to about 1.2 and apreform weight of less than or about 13 g;

b) a preform end cap diameter (mm) from about 14.25 mm to about 17.00mm; and/or

c) a preform end cap weight (g) less than or about 10% of preform weightor alternatively, less than or about 8% of preform weight.

Further according to this disclosure, there is also provided aCarbonated Soft Drink (CSD) container prepared from the preformdescribed immediately above, the Carbonated Soft Drink (CSD) containerhaving any one or more of the following properties:

a) a difference between area distribution (%) and weight distribution(%) in the container base section, the container shoulder section(defined as the “top” section of FIG. 3), or both the container base andthe container shoulder sections is less than 8%;

b) a shelf life (elapsed time from 4.2 to 3.3 volumes CO₂) of greaterthan or about 50 days, for example, when the container is a 250 mL CSDbottle;

c) a sectional area to weight ratio (A/W, cm²/g) for any given sectionis within 25% of the overall surface area to weight (excluding finish)ratio;

d) a weight distribution efficiency (WDE) greater than or about 95%;

e) a container size less than or about 400 mL;

f) a higher crystallinity (>9%) in the base area at any point adjacentto the gate (within from 5 mm to 15 mm distance from gate, as comparedto the corresponding crystallinity (>9%) in the base area of a containermade with standard 28 mm finish (crystallinity as specified herein wasmeasured using density gradient technique); and/or

g) a higher orientation (% Trans content >70%) in the base adjacent tothe gate.

These and various other aspects and embodiments of this disclosure areillustrated in the drawings, examples, data, and detailed descriptionthat follow.

BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF THE DRAWINGS

FIG. 1 illustrates shelf life calculations (M-RULE® ContainerPerformance Model software package) as CO₂ loss (volumes) versus time(days) of a standard design larger bottle and lighter weight bottlesprepared upon scaling down the standard design larger bottleproportionally by reducing the amount of polymer used to make the smallcontainer and its preform. A nominal 12 g, 200 mL PET standard designwas the standard or conventional bottle, and corresponding bottles werereduced in weight in 1.0 g increments for subsequent calculations. Shelflife is determined by the elapsed time to lose CO₂ from a starting valueof 4.2 volumes to 3.3 volumes, regardless of whether the bottle is acoated or uncoated bottle.

FIG. 2 provides a sectional view of a preform for reference,illustrating the different sections that are referred to in thisdisclosure. Starting from the threaded portion at the bottom of FIG. 2,these sections are the finish (10), neck straight (15), transition (20),body (25), and end cap (30) at the bottom or base of the preform (at thetop of FIG. 2). FIG. 2 also illustrated where preform outer diameter isdetermined (35), namely at the preform body immediately adjacent the endcap, but before the body begins to curve and form the end cap. Thestandard finish dimensions T, I, and E are illustrated.

FIG. 3 illustrates the measurement of weight distribution efficiency(WDE) of a comparative light weight (12 g), 200 mL standard test bottlewas used for the analysis, along with some data regarding itsfabrication. This comparative bottle is a stretch blow-molded CSD bottlehaving a 26 mm PCO 1873 finish and a finish weight of 3.6 g, as shown atExample 1A. The figure illustrates the 4 total sections below the finishinto which the container is divided when WDE is measured according toMethod B: top, panel, grip, and base sections.

FIG. 4 illustrates exemplary and comparative preform designs. FIG. 4A isa comparative 12.0 g Hemi preform having a 28 mm finish. FIG. 4B is an8.3 g Hemi (Design 1) and FIG. 4C is an 8.3 g Conical preform (Design2), both used to prepare the small carbonated beverage packaging withenhanced shelf life properties according to this disclosure. The 8.3 gpreform designs (Designs 1 and 2) are characterized by smaller end capouter diameters and a smaller finish, features which result in improvedgas barrier properties, bottle design, base design, and creepperformance. For example, the 12.0 g Hemi preform (FIG. 4A) has a 17.23mm outer diameter while the 8.3 g Hemi preform (FIG. 4B) has a 14.7 mmouter diameter.

FIG. 5 illustrates a graph of percent (%) crystallinity in the baseversus stance from the gate (mm) for bottle prepared according toExample 5 (9.3 g, 200 mL new PET design ♦) as compared with thecrystallinity distribution in the base of two conventional PET bottles,a 12 g PET bottle (▪) and a 17.5 g PET conventional bottle (▴), eachhaving a 28 mm finish.

FIG. 6 plots the measured shelf life of small PET bottles versus bottleweights (8.0, 9.0, and 10.0 grams) for bottles having a 22 mm finishfabricated according to this disclosure, at 22° C. (▴) and at 38° C.(×). These shelf life measurements are compared in FIG. 6 to themeasured shelf life of larger PET bottles versus bottle weights (12.0grams and above) for bottles having a conventional 28 mm finish, also at22° C. (♦) and at 38° C. (▪).

FIG. 7 illustrates the sectioning method for measuring the weightdistribution efficiency (WDE) of a bottle according to Method A. InMethod A for WDE determination, Sections 1 and 5 are cut at thelocations shown in FIG. 7, namely, 11 mm and 18 mm from standing ringrespectively. Sections 2, 3 and 4 are then generally cut intoequal-height sections as shown.

FIG. 8 illustrates the amount of orientation (% Trans content) in thebase adjacent to the gate. Data for the following bottles areillustrated: 9.3 g, 200 mL new design (♦); 12 g PET bottle (▪); and 17.5g PET conventional bottle (▴). Trans (oriented) and Gauche (unorientedamorphous) content was measured using FTIR, and the % Trans wascalculated as shown below. Specifically, the % Trans was measured atintervals of 5 mm from the gate as shown on FIG. 8. The measurementinstrument used was PerkinElmer Spectrum 400 FT-NIR Spectrometer withATR (antenuated total reflectance) capability.

% trans =((A_(1340 cm−1)/A_(1410 cm−1))/((A_(1340 cm−1)/A_(1410 cm−1)) +(A_(1370 cm−1)/A_(1410 cm−1))))*100 A Absorbance peak height 1410 cm⁻¹Reference band 1370 cm⁻¹ Gauche band 1340 cm⁻¹ Trans band

FIG. 9 illustrates the percent (%) crystallinity by weight fraction ofbottles from FIG. 8 according to this disclosure, as a function ofdistance of the flake from the gate (in mm). The positive distance isfor the flakes in the valley, and the negative distance is for theflakes in the bump of the bottle.

FIG. 10 illustrates the results from a creep study, by providing a plotof creep ratio (%) versus time (days) for a 250 mL inventive bottleaccording to this disclosure (GV is number of gas volumes), showing thesignificantly improved creep ratio as compared to the conventionalcontour bottle illustrated in FIG. 11.

FIG. 11 illustrates the results from a comparative creep study, byproviding a plot of creep ratio (%) versus time (days) for a 500 mLconventional contour bottle (GV is number of gas volumes).

FIG. 12 illustrates the Weight Distribution Efficiency (WDE) for a 250mL new design (9.3 g) bottle (A), a 250 mL new design (9.5 g) bottle(B), and a 300 mL new design (9.6 g) bottle (C). The inner ring of thesegraphs illustrates the weight distribution and the outer ring of thesegraphs illustrates the area distribution for each bottle.

DETAILED DESCRIPTION

Aspects of this disclosure provide for new containers, preforms, andmethods that improve the overall weight distribution efficiency (WDE)and thermal stability of the container, particularly small containersless than or about 400 mL. In some aspects, the small containers areless than or about 360 mL; alternatively, less than or about 325 mL;alternatively, less than or about 250 mL; alternatively, less than orabout 200 mL; or alternatively, less than or about 100 mL. For example,the new containers, preforms, and methods of this disclosure aregenerally applicable to small containers from about 100 to about 400 mL;alternatively, from about 200 to about 360 mL; or alternatively, fromabout 250 to about 325 mL.

These disclosed design features that lead to improved WDE in turnprovide enhanced shelf life for PET containers used for packagingcarbonated soft drinks (CSD). It has been found that by selectivelyreducing the amount of material in either or both the preform neckstraight and the preform end cap, and/or by reducing the size (diameter)of the preform and container finish, WDE can be improved to at leastabout 95%, at least about 96%, or at least about 97%. This effect can bedramatic, particularly when reducing the base weight through preformdesign according to this disclosure. Moreover, this improved shapeproviding enhanced WDE also benefits creep performance and therebyfurther improves shelf life, whether the interior or exterior surface ofthe bottle includes a gas barrier coating or is absent such a coating.This selective reduction of material in the preform neck straight and/orend cap also can improve crystallinity distribution and polymerorientation in the neck and/or base for better performance, andgenerally promotes orientation in these hard to stretch areas. Thislower proportions of un-oriented material in the container and higherWDE affords improved carbonation retention and shelf life, and creep canbe reduced or minimized in small bottles fabricated accordingly.

The following definitions are provided to further explain and elaboratevarious aspects of this disclosure.

As used herein, “weight distribution efficiency” or WDE of a containercalculated according to “Method A” is defined according to the formula:

${WDE} = \frac{\sum\limits_{i = 1}^{i = n}\; {\frac{a_{i}}{w_{i}} \times {Ai}}}{\frac{A}{W}}$

wherein:

α_(i) is the area of the i^(th) container section;

w_(i) is the weight of the i^(th) container section;

A is the total area of the container;

A_(i) is the area fraction for section i

W is the total weight of the container; and

i is one of n total sections into which the container is divided, eachsection equally spanning i/n of the total container height measured fromthe bottom of the base to the bottom of the support ring.

Typically, when using Method A of calculating WDE, n will be 4, 5, or 6,although any number of sections can be used. That is, for the purposesof calculating WDE, there typically will be 4, 5, or 6 sections that aresectioned as illustrated in FIG. 7. Thus, in Method A, Sections 1 and 5are cut at locations as shown in FIG. 7, specifically, at 11 mm and 18mm from standing ring respectively. Then, Sections 2, 3 and 4 are cutinto equal-height sections as shown in FIG. 7. All sections are thenexamined according to the Method A formula and used for the calculationin the WDE numerator, summed over all sections, and divided by A/W asindicated. Generally, WDE can be thought of as how closely the weightpercentage of material present in any given section i of the containercorresponds to the area percentage of the material used in that section.The closer WDE is to unity (100%), the more efficiently and evendistributed the weight is based on the distribution of the area.

Alternatively, the “weight distribution efficiency” or WDE of acontainer calculated according to “Method B” is defined according to theformula:

${WDE} = \frac{\sum\limits_{i = 1}^{i = 4}\; {\frac{a_{i}}{w_{i}} \times {Ai}}}{\frac{A}{W}}$

wherein:

α_(i) is the area of the i^(th) container section;

w_(i) is the weight of the i^(th) container section;

A is the total area of the container;

Ai is the area fraction for section i

W is the total weight of the container; and

i is one of 4 total sections into which the container is divided, eachsection being designated as (from the bottom of the container): base,grip, panel, and top. Each of these sections is set out and demonstratedin FIG. 3 for a conventional bottle design. In this case, each of the 4total sections do not necessarily equally span ¼^(th) (corresponding toi/n of Method A) of the total container height measured from the bottomof the base to the bottom of the support ring. As FIG. 3 demonstrates,the 4 total sections below the finish into which the container isdivided are the top, panel, grip, and base sections according to thestructure of the bottle itself The WDE percentages recited in thisapplication are applicable to Method A, Method B, or both Method A andMethod B.

Also as used herein, shelf life is determined according to CO₂ loss, andwas either estimated using industry standard software or was measured.Shelf life measurements were carried out either using the FourierTransform Infrared (FTIR) measurements of carbonation retention or byusing a pressure probe and monitoring CO₂ pressure inside the containerover a period of time. Both methods were used to extrapolate data todetermine shelf life. In this disclosure “shelf life” is defined as thetime required for CO₂ volumes in a container to drop to 3.3 volumes.Therefore, if there are 4.2 volumes of CO₂ in the container initially(t=0), the shelf life is the time required to attain a 21.4% loss in CO₂volumes inside the packaged container from the time zero starting pointwith 4.2 volumes of CO₂ in the container. That is, the shelf life ofthat container is the time taken for the CO₂ volumes to reduce from thestarting volumes of 4.2 volumes in this case down to 3.3 volumes, or a21.4% decrease. If the starting volumes of CO₂ was 4.0 volumes, theshelf life would have to be measured as the time taken for a 17.5% dropin CO₂ volumes, that is, the time required for the CO₂ volumes to dropfrom the initial (t=0) 4.0 volumes to 3.3 volumes. For some tests, shelflife estimates were calculated using the M-RULE® Container PerformanceModel software package from Container Science, Inc. (CSI). This softwareis an industry standard for quickly estimating CO₂ and O₂ bottle shelflife performance characteristics of a container or package, without thedelay and cost of performing traditional long-term shelf life tests.

“Crystallinity” and “percent crystallinity” measure the alignment orpartial alignment of polymer chains in the fabricated bottle that resultdue to the preform design, structure, and composition, as well asfabrication methods such as mechanical stretching and cooling. Morehighly crystalline polymers are less permeable, exhibit lower creep andare generally more optically transparent. In this disclosure,crystallinity is generally reported as a percent and is measured bysampling the bottle at the base at known distances from the gate.Percent crystallinity is estimated according to density measurementsusing known methods, for example, as in ASTM D1505.

The term “Carbonated Soft Drink (CSD)” container is used herein to referto the containers of this disclosure that are designed for use underpressure, such as carbonation, without specific limitation as to theintended contents of the container. Generally, the term “container” isused interchangeably with the term “bottle” unless the context requiresotherwise.

Because many polymers used to prepare CSD containers are crystallizable,orientation and crystallinity factor into the polymer and bottleperformance. For example, PET is crystallizable polyester that can existin different morphology states, such as semi-crystalline in resinpellets, amorphous in preforms, and oriented-crystalline in blowncontainers. Both orientation and crystallinity generally improve thecontainer performance. While not intending to be bound by theory, it isgenerally thought that crystallinity improves barrier performance byincreasing the passive barrier (more tortuous path for gases to escape)and amorphous orientation improves barrier performance by increasingresistance to creep.

Factors affecting orientation include Resin IV, Stretch Ratios,Stretching Speed and Stretching Temperature. In one aspect, thisdisclosure provides stretch ratios tailored to allow a bottle to beblown at the right blow temperature (without haze or pearlescence) toobtain maximum orientation and strain-induced crystallinity. Increasingthe blow temperature generally increases crystallinity but reduces theamorphous orientation that will impact creep performance. According toan aspect of this disclosure, for the small packages described herein,the following stretch ratios were generally used: Axial Stretch Ratio:2.8-3.0; Hoop Stretch Ratio (Inside): 5.2-5.6; Areal Stretch Ratio:14-17.

A further aspect of the preforms and CSD bottles and their associatedmethods is improving creep performance, and this disclosure providesmethods for fabricating light-weight container is to reduce or minimizecreep. For example, in an aspect, creep can be reduced or minimized bymaximizing orientation and achieving strain hardening during the blowingprocess. It is thought that these features lead to more uniform materialdistribution along the container contour length and helps to minimizecreep. Reducing creep also generally means lower headspace which in turnreduces the amount of CO₂ escaping into the headspace from the liquid,features that help increase shelf life. Stress acting on the sidewall isproportional to the diameter of the container and inversely proportionalto thickness. Also for coated containers, it is important to minimizecreep as too much local elongation can initiate cracking of the coatingand compromise BIF (Barrier Improvement Factor) achieved by coating.

In order to characterize the impact of stretch ratio on physicalperformance (burst, creep, top load) the 200 mL container was used as areference container to evaluate different stretch ratios (preformdesigns) and their impact on physical performance. The following tablesummarizes characteristic ratios and performance.

TABLE 1 Effect of preform stretch ratios on creep Preform P1 Preform P2Preform P3 BO ratios lg: 3.05 Ø: 3.59 BO: 11.58 lg: 3.32 Ø: 4.00 BO:13.28 lg: 3.14 Ø: 4.45 BO: 14 feet: 3.47 feet: 3.73 feet: 4.38 Vortex NoNo No Rh 2032 2348 1204 Output 2000 2000 2000 Performances Min AverageMax Min Average Max Min Average Max Burst 15.4 17.2 17.7 13.9 18.4 16.914.8 15.4 16 Empty Top Load 9.1 9.6 9.8 8.7 9.1 9.5 6.4 8.6 8.9 Vacuum90 92 93 102 103 104 93 93 93 Creep Height 1.1 1.1 1.2 0.7 0.9 1.1 1.11.3 1.4 Creep Dim 1 −0.2 −0.1 0 0 0.1 0.2 0 0.4 0.6 Creep Dim 2 1 1.71.9 1.3 1.7 2 1.2 1.8 2.2 Creep Dim 3 −0.4 −0.4 −0.4 0.1 −0.1 0.3 0 −0.3−0.6 Creep Dim 4 3.7 4.1 4.2 1.7 2.1 2.7 1.5 2.5 3.2 Inside Hoop StretchRatio 4.87 5.25 6.12 Inside Pinch Ratio 3.94 4.25 4.96 Outside PinchRatio 2.6 2.61 2.83 Preform P4 Preform P5 Preform P6 BO ratios lg: 3.14Ø: 4.45 BO: 14 lg: 3.13 Ø: 4.25 BO: 13.3 lg: 3.83 Ø: 3.40 BO: 13.51feet: 4.35 feet: 4.02 feet: 3.07 Vortex Yes No No Rh 1204 1600 1437Output 2000 2000 2000 Performances Min Average Max Min Average Max MinAverage Max Burst 15.1 15.5 15.7 16.9 17.3 17.6 12.1 13.4 14.5 Empty TopLoad 8 8.3 8.5 8.4 8.8 9 9.6 10.5 10.9 Vacuum 85 85 85 87 92 95 107 108109 Creep Height 1.4 1.4 1.5 1.2 1.3 1.3 0.9 1.2 1.4 Creep Dim 1 0.3 0.40.6 0 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.5 0.6 Creep Dim 2 1.8 1.9 2.1 1.6 1.7 1.9 2.1 2.32.4 Creep Dim 3 −0.1 −0.2 −0.3 −0.3 −0.4 −0.7 0 0.2 0.4 Creep Dim 4 2.12.8 3 2.2 2.4 2.6 3.1 4 4.8 Inside Hoop Stretch Ratio 6.12 5.64 4.37Inside Pinch Ratio 4.96 4.57 3.54 Outside Pinch Ratio 2.83 3.4 2.24

Table 2 illustrates the effect of preform stretch ratios on creep. Creepdimension 4 (dim 4) corresponds to pinch diameter. As seen, an identicalcontainer design blown with different preforms (stretch ratios) resultsin creep varying from 2.1 to 4.1% (almost 100% more), highlighting theeffect that preform design can have on local creep in the pinch area. Itis also seen that macroscopic physical performance characteristics suchas Top Load or Burst pressure do not provide particularly reliableindicators of local creep performance in these small bottles.Characteristic stretch ratios calculated in the local area (pinch) seemto have a good correlation with local creep. In an aspect, having aninside hoop stretch ratio in the range of about 5.2-5.7 and inside pinchratio in the range of about 4.2-4.6 result in good creep performance fora given container design.

The following table summarizes some preform parameters for differentsmall bottle designs that have been found to assist in providing goodcreep resistance, gas barrier performance, and weight distributionefficiency (WDE). The exemplary data in this table illustrates therelationship between bottle size (weight) and end cap OD, and a goodstretch ratio window for axial and hoop stretch for providing thedifferent small bottle designs.

TABLE 2 Exemplary preform parameters for different small bottle designsPreform Information Finish Container Max ID, Min ID, End Cap Height,Preform Preform ½ Description mm mm OD, mm mm Length, mm Length, mm 200mL New PET 9.9 9.63 14.93 12.8 64.44 55 54 Design 1 350 mL New PET 12.0411.72  17.96 12.8 73.71 63.92 Design 1 250 mL New PET 9.9 9.64 15.6814.8 66.74 55.99 Design 1 250 mL New PET 9.81 9 52 15.37 13 3 69 59.77Design 2 300 mL New PET 10 9.67 15.22 13.3 74 64.7  Design 2

The design principles of this disclosure can also provide improvementsin container burst pressure, percent volume expansion, and the like. Thefollowing table illustrates some of the new containers and theirphysical properties.

TABLE 4 Selected new container designs and their physical propertiesBurst % volume Bottle Pressure, expansion @ Fill point Bottle ID Weight,g psi 135 psi, 13 s Drop, mm 200 mL PET New 8.3 229 4.5 Design 250 mLPET New 9.3 224 5.2 11.5 Design

The following table also illustrates some 250 mL PET New designcontainers and their physical properties. This data illustrates thatthere is a correlation between physical performance and Shelf-Life.Generally, the higher the volume expansion (and fill point drop), thelower the shelf-life. These data demonstrate the impact of creep (andhow it affects coating) and therefore the shelf-life. The percent (%)volume expansion is the amount that a bottle expands when it ispressurized to 135 psi and held at that pressure for 13 s.

Also as provided herein, it has also been discovered that carbonationretention and shelf life can be dramatically improved with small (≦about400 mL and particularly, ≦300 mL) containers, by increasing the weightdistribution efficiency (WDE) of the container, that is, the extent ofhow uniformly the weight is distributed over the entire container. Thatis, matching the weight percentage and surface area percentage of eachsection of the entire container. When good weight distributionefficiency (WDE) of the container is combined with minimizing theproportion of amorphous (un-oriented) polymer as described above,carbonation retention and shelf life are further improved beyond whatone of ordinary skill would have expected. The design and shapeimprovements disclosed herein have also been found to provide enhancedcreep performance. Unexpected and significant improvement in coatingperformance were observed when coatings were used in combination withthe design and shape optimized bottles, as compared to coated bottleswithout shape and creep minimization at very low weights.

Regarding weight distribution efficiency (WDE) of a container, referenceis made to FIG. 2, which sets out the different sections of aconventional preform that are referred to in this disclosure. Thesesections are generally referred to, starting from the bottom (base): theend cap, body, transition, neck straight, and finish. It has beendiscovered that the disparities in stretch performance among thesesections was most severe in the end cap and the neck straight, as thesewere more difficult to stretch.

Therefore, potential areas for the reducing weight of the container wereparticularly identified to be in the end cap, transition, neck straight,and the finish. According to an aspect, this disclosure provides forreducing the size (diameter) of a conventional finish to smallerdiameters to prepare a light-weight container. For example, a currentPCO 1881 finish for CSD containers weighs 3.8 g. By reducing the PCO1881 finish diameter from 28 mm down to 24, 22, or 20 mm, there isopportunity to reduce finish weight and overall containers weight. Thedata in the following table demonstrates the expected weight reductionupon reducing the finish diameter from 28 mm down to 24, 22, and 20 mm.It is seen that even modest reductions in finish diameter result insubstantial reductions in finish weight.

TABLE 6 Calculated weight reduction in container finish upon reducingcontainer opening size from the standard 28 mm opening. Opening Size(mm) Finish Weight (g) 28 3.80 24 2.50 22 2.13 20 1.87

Another benefit in reducing the finish diameter has also beendiscovered, namely that reducing the opening size also reduces theamount of un-stretched material in the neck straight. This aspect ofcontainer design parameters was found to be significant. For example,for a 28 mm finish with a 4 mm neck straight under the support ledge,the amount of PET material amounts to about 0.31 g. For a corresponding22 mm neck finish with same neck 4 mm neck straight, the amount of PETmaterial is reduced to only 0.18 g in the neck straight.

In addition to reducing the opening size which reduces the amount ofun-stretched material, it was also discovered that performanceenhancements could be gained upon reducing the overall preform and endcap outer diameter, which can be shown to lead to significant savings,FIG. 4. The 8.3 g “Hemi” and “Conical” preform designs of FIG. 4 are notmerely smaller opening analogs of the 12.0 g Hemi conventional design.Instead, the 8.3 g preform designs are characterized by smaller end capouter diameters, a feature which results in a reduction in the amount ofun-stretched material in the end cap. The table below provides datashowing the effect of reducing overall preform and end cap outerdiameter, where the preform designs are set out in FIG. 4.

TABLE 7 Effect of reducing overall preform (end cap) outer diameter (seeFIG. 4) Finish ID/Preform Preform End Cap Preform End Cap Preform ODRatio Diameter (mm) Weight (g) 12 g Hemi 1.26 17.23 1.28 8.3 g Hemi 1.1614.70 0.84 (Design 1) 8.3 g Conical 1.14 14.93 0.56 (Design 2) 9.3 gConical 1.08 15.68 0.67 (Design 3) 10.3 g Conical 1.04 16.26 0.73(Design 4)

Thus, reducing the preform outer diameter (OD) also helps reduce thematerial in the end cap, which consequently allows for better stretchingand a higher percent crystallinity and orientation in the base, featureswhich is illustrated in FIG. 5. For example, and while not intending tobe bound by theory, it has been discovered that it is not optimum toreduce the preform OD for a typical 28 mm finish as one might expect,because it was found that the relative amount of material in thetransition (FIG. 2) increases, and this excess material will get trappedin the shoulder during stretch blow molding. The result will be apreform that leads to a container with a lower WDE than would otherwisehave resulted with a smaller finish opening.

In addition, merely reducing the preform OD but retaining a typical 28mm finish was found to also result in a thicker preform and higher hoopstretch, that is, both inside and outside hoop stretch ratios, adverselyaffecting the fabrication process by narrowing the process window. Incontrast, using the preforms according to this disclosure having asmaller preform OD allows better stretching of the material in the base.This smaller preform OD and improved stretching in the base has beenfound to require a smaller opening size, as explained above. Reducingthe smaller opening along with reducing the preform OD also givesflexibility to tailor stretch ratios needed to optimize materialdistribution and orientation by avoiding narrow process conditions.

Accordingly, features of this disclosure that provide the enhancedbeverage shelf life for carbonate beverages include, for example,improving the usage of available material by optimizing the preformdesign to ensure there is minimum amount of amorphous or un-orientedmaterial in the container. This has been found to be possible by thecombination of employing a smaller opening (less than 28 mm) along withreducing the preform OD, which provides flexibility to tailor stretchratios, reduces the amount of material in the preform end cap and neckstraight, and provides a high weight distribution efficiency (WDE).

According to an aspect, the weight distribution efficiency (WDE) of aCSD container fabricated according to this disclosure can be greaterthan or about 95%; alternatively, greater than or about 96%;alternatively, greater than or about 97%; alternatively, greater than orabout 98%; alternatively, greater than or about 99%; or alternatively,about 100%.

According to further aspects, the finish ID (inner diameter)/preform OD(outer diameter) ratio of the preforms and containers of this disclosurecan be about 0.90 to about 1.20. For example, finish ID/preform OD ratiocan be about 0.90, 0.95, 1.00, 1.05, 1.10, 1.15, or 1.20, including anyranges or sub ranges between any of these values.

Yet further aspects provided by this disclosure are the surface area perweight measurements for the CSD containers described herein. Forexample, the surface area per weight (SA:W) can be about 3000 square mmper gram (mm²/g) or more. Alternatively, the SA:W can be about 3025mm²/g or more, about 3050 mm²/g or more, about 3075 mm²/g or more, about3100 mm²/g or more, about 3150 mm²/g or more, about 3200 mm²/g or more,about 3250 mm²/g or more, about 3300 mm²/g or more, about 3350 mm²/g ormore, about 3400 mm²/g or more, about 3450 mm²/g or more, about 3500mm²/g or more.

In additional aspects, it is noted that the disclosed bottles havingimproved material distribution according to this disclosure alsomaintain good creep performance, even though the bottles aresubstantially lighter in weight than conventionally designed bottles ofthis volume. Examples of creep performance data are provided in thefollowing table, where creep was determined in accordance with FEAsimulation studies, while the recorded Shelf Life measurements are fromexperimental FTIR studies.

TABLE 8 Creep performance data and shelf life summary for containersaccording to this disclosure. Shelf life Volumetric Creep (%) BottleSize & Weight (FTIR) (FEA Simulation) 200 mL/8.3 g 41 days 2.65 Example3 200 mL/9.3 g 54 days 2.06 Example 4 250 mL/9.3 g 50 days 3.01 Example5

EXAMPLES FTIR Method for Estimating Packaging CO₂ Shelf Life

Generally, the Fourier Transform Infrared (FTIR) method for estimatingshelf life determines a package's CO₂ loss rate by quantitativelymeasuring the Near Infrared (NIR) absorbance of CO₂ at a known pathlength. In making these measurements, the brimful volume of a testbottle was determined, and a predetermined amount of solid CO₂ (dry ice)was measured and added to 12 test bottles, which were then closed withan appropriate selected closure. Each filled bottle's diameter wasdetermined at 86 mm from the base, and CO₂ absorbance (FTIR) wasmeasured to establish an initial CO₂ concentration. Test bottles werestored in an environmental chamber at 22±1° C. and 50% RH. Over thecourse of the subsequent 49 days, 9 additional FTIR measurements weremade. The percent loss of CO₂ concentration as a function of time wasextrapolated to provide a slope corresponding to rate of CO₂ loss/(dayor week). As described hereinabove, the package shelf life wasdetermined by calculating the number of days or weeks required for aninitial 4.2 volumes CO₂ in the filled packaging to reach 3.3 volumescarbonation, regardless of whether the bottle is a coated or uncoatedbottle. The appropriate amount of dry ice for 4.2 volumes CO₂ wascalculated from the bottle brimful volume in mL according to thefollowing formula:

Dry Ice Weight (g)=(Bottle brimful volume in mL)×(0.0077g/mL)×(DesiredCO₂ psi/56psi)

Additional tests were conducted using a combination of the predeterminedamount of measured solid CO₂ along with a small volume of water, andothers with carbonated water.

Example 1 Shelf Life Measurements of Conventional Small Bottles

Shelf life values for currently used small bottles were measured andused as a benchmark for comparison with containers designed and preparedaccording to this disclosure. The following table reports the volumesand weights of the current commercial containers and their respectiveshelf life performance.

TABLE 9 Shelf life measurements (FT-IR) of small test bottles incommercial use. Example 1A Example 1B Example 1C Parameter 200 mL 300 mL200 mL Weight (g) 12 17.5 17.5 Shelf life (days) 47 65 57 at 72° F. WDE(%) 90.6 94.2 85.2 (Method B) Thermal Stability, 1.68 1.27 1.54 Height(%) Thermal Stability, Mid 3.17 2.00 1.45 Panel (%)

The reduction in shelf life when using the same weight of polymer (17.5g) but reducing the container size from Example 1B to Example 1C issubstantial.

Example 2 Shelf life Calculations of Proportionally Scaled-DownContainers

In order to demonstrate the impact on shelf life of conventionalfabrication methods for small packages, performance modeling softwarewas used to estimate shelf life upon scaling down a standard design of alarger bottle proportionally by reducing the amount of polymer used tomake the small container and its preform, as follows. Shelf life wasestimated using the M-RULE® Container Performance Model software packagefrom Container Science, Inc. (CSI), which is the industry standard forquickly estimating CO₂ and O₂ bottle shelf life performancecharacteristics of a container or package.

A 12 g, 200 mL standard test bottle was used for the analysis. Thefollowing table and FIG. 1 summarize the shelf life calculations whenthe weight of the 12 g standard test bottle was decreased in incrementsof 1.0 g.

TABLE 10 Shelf life calculations of a scaled-down 12 g, 200 mL standardtest bottle Calculated Shelf life Average Thickness Weight (g) (days)(mm) 12.3 45.3 0.20 11.3 38.2 0.18 10.3 31.0 0.15 9.3 23.8 0.12

These data demonstrate that light weighting by as little as 1 g has asignificant adverse impact on shelf life. Reducing the weight of the 200mL package by 3 g (24% less PET) would have a very substantial adverseimpact on shelf life, reducing the shelf life by about 47% of itsinitial value. The dramatic loss of shelf life demonstrates thechallenges of fabricating small packages and the need for alternativeapproaches, particularly when the economic and environmental pressuresrequire light weighting.

Example 3 Shelf Life of a High WDE Small Bottle from Preform Design 2

Based on the design parameters set out in this disclosure, a small 8.3g, 200 mL new design bottle was fabricated and subjected to weightdistribution efficiency analysis (WDE) according to Method B. Thepreform parameters are as follows:

Preform end cap OD: 14.93 mm;

I/OD ratio: 1.14;

End cap weight: 0.56 g.

This preform is designated “8.3 g Conical (Design 2)” in the tables.Using this 8.3 g preform, 200 mL containers with a 22 mm finish werestretch-blow molded.

Weight distribution efficiency (WDE) and shelf life were measured toquantify performance. WDE was calculated based on sectioning the bottleinto the four different sections according to Method B, base, grip,panel, and top, as illustrated in FIG. 3, and the area distribution andactual weights of each section were determined and are presented in thetable below. The WDE of this container with a 22 mm finish was found tobe 97%.

TABLE 11 Weight Distribution Efficiency Analysis (Method B) of 8.3 g,200 mL PET New Design, stretch blow-molded from a Conical (Design 2)preform. Weight Distribution Area Distribution Section (%) (%) Top 30 29Panel 17 19 Grip 28 31 Base 25 21 Calculated WDE = 97% M-RULE ®predicted shelf life = 31 days Measured shelf life (FTIR) = 41 days

The measured shelf life (FTIR method) of this container was surprisinglyfound to be 41 days, with an impermeable closure. This measured shelflife was compared to predicted (M-RULE®) shelf life for a 200 mLcontainer with similar useable material (6.5 g under support ledge) witha 28 mm finish, with an impermeable closure, which was estimated to be31 days.

While not intending to be theory bound, it is believed that thisincreased shelf life of 10 days additional gain was achieved because ofbetter material distribution (WDE˜97%) and increased crystallinity andorientation in the base. Because permeability is a function of diffusionand solubility, increasing crystallinity, orientation and improvedweight distribution reduces both solubility and diffusivity. In additionthere is added benefit of slightly reduced closure surface area becauseof smaller opening size.

Example 4 Shelf Life of a High WDE Small Bottle from Preform Design 3

Based on the design parameters set out in this disclosure, a small 9.3g, 200 mL new design bottle was fabricated and subjected to weightdistribution efficiency analysis (WDE) according to Method B. Thepreform parameters are as follows:

Preform end cap OD: 15.68 mm;

I/OD ratio: 1.08;

End cap weight: 0.67 g.

This preform is designated “9.3 g Conical” in the tables. Using this 9.3g preform, 200 mL containers with a 22 mm finish (1.8 g) werestretch-blow molded.

Weight distribution efficiency (WDE) and shelf life were measured toquantify performance. WDE was calculated based on sectioning the bottleinto the four different sections according to Method B, base, grip,panel, and top, as illustrated in FIG. 3, and the area distribution andactual weights of each section were determined and are presented in thetable below. The WDE of this container with a 22 mm finish was found tobe 98%.

TABLE 12 Weight Distribution Efficiency Analysis (Method B) of 9.3 g,200 mL New Design, stretch blow-molded from a Design 3 preform. WeightDistribution Area Distribution Section (%) (%) Top 33 29 Panel 16 19Grip 28 31 Base 23 21 Calculated WDE = 98% M-RULE ® predicted shelf life= 38 days Measured shelf life (FTIR) = 54 days

The measured shelf life (FTIR method) of this container was surprisinglyfound to be 54 days, with an impermeable closure. This measured shelflife was compared to predicted (M-RULE ®) shelf life for a 200 mLcontainer with similar useable material (7.5 g under support ledge) witha 28 mm finish, with an impermeable closure, which was estimated to be38 days.

Again, while not intending to be theory bound, it is believed that thisincreased shelf life of 16 days additional gain was achieved because ofbetter material distribution (WDE ˜98%) and increased crystallinity andorientation in the base. There is likely an added benefit of a slightlyreduced closure surface area because of smaller opening size.

Example 5 Shelf Life of a 250 mL Small Bottle from Preform Design 3

Based on the design parameters set out in this disclosure, a small 9.3g, 250 mL new design bottle was fabricated and subjected to weightdistribution efficiency analysis (WDE) according to Method B. Thepreform parameters are as follows:

Preform end cap OD: 15.68 mm;

I/OD ratio: 1.08;

End cap weight: 0.67 g.

This preform is designated “9.3 g Conical” in the tables. Using thispreform, 250 mL containers with a 22 mm finish (1.8 g finish weight)were stretch-blow molded.

Weight distribution efficiency (WDE) and shelf life were measured toquantify performance. WDE was calculated based on sectioning the bottleinto the four different sections according to Method B, as illustratedin FIG. 3, and the area distribution and actual weights of each sectionwere determined and are presented in the table below. The WDE of thiscontainer with a 22 mm finish was found to be 97%.

TABLE 13 Weight Distribution Efficiency Analysis (Method B) of 9.3 g,250 mL New Design, stretch blow-molded from a Design 3 preform. WeightDistribution Area Distribution Section (%) (%) Top 32 27 Panel 16 19Grip 27 30 Base 25 24 Calculated WDE = 97% M-RULE ® predicted shelf life= 38 days Measured shelf life (FTIR) = 50 days

The measured shelf life (FTIR method) of this container was surprisinglyfound to be 50 days, with an impermeable closure. This measured shelflife was compared to predicted (M-RULE®) shelf life for a 250 mLcontainer with similar useable material (7.5 g under support ledge) witha 28 mm finish, with an impermeable closure, which was estimated to be38 days. Again, while not intending to be theory bound, it is believedthat this increased shelf life was achieved because of better materialdistribution (WDE ˜97%) and increased crystallinity and orientation inthe base.

Example 6 Shelf Life of a 250 mL Small Bottle from Preform Design 4

Based on the design parameters set out in this disclosure, a small 10.3g, 250 mL new design bottle was fabricated and subjected to weightdistribution efficiency analysis (WDE) according to Method B. Thepreform parameters are as follows:

Preform end cap OD: 16.26 mm;

I/OD ratio: 1.04;

End cap weight: 0.73 g.

This preform is designated “10.3 g Conical” in the tables. Using thispreform, 250 mL containers with a 22 mm finish were stretch-blow molded.

Weight distribution efficiency (WDE) and shelf life were measured toquantify performance. WDE was calculated based on sectioning the bottleinto the four different sections according to Method B, as illustratedin FIG. 3, and the area distribution and actual weights of each sectionwere determined and are presented in the table below. The WDE of thiscontainer with a 22 mm finish was found to be 99%.

TABLE 14 Weight Distribution Efficiency Analysis (Method B) of 10.3 g,250 mL New Design, stretch blow-molded from a Design 4 preform. WeightDistribution Area Distribution Section (%) (%) Top 30 27 Panel 16 19Grip 31 30 Base 23 24 Calculated WDE = 99% M-RULE ® predicted shelf life= 45 days Measured shelf life (FTIR) = 56 days

The measured shelf life (FTIR method) of this container was surprisinglyfound to be 56 days, with an impermeable closure. This measured shelflife was compared to predicted (M-RULE) shelf life for a 250 mLcontainer with similar useable material (9.5 g under support ledge) witha 28 mm finish, with an impermeable closure, which was estimated to be45 days.

Example 7 Crystallinity Distribution in a Container Base

The 9.3 g, 200 mL new design bottle prepared according to Example 4 wasexamined for its crystallinity distribution in the base, and comparedwith the crystallinity distribution in the base of two conventional PETbottles. Specifically, a 12 g PET bottle and a 17.5 g PET conventionalbottle were compared, each having a 28 mm finish. Percent crystallinitywas measured by sampling each bottle at the base at known distances fromthe gate, and estimating crystallinity (%) according to densitymeasurements, as disclosed herein. The results are illustrated in FIG.5.

The data in FIG. 5 illustrate that the 9.3 g, 200 mL new design bottleis characterized by approximately 10% crystallinity at the gate andseveral mm removed from the gate. By comparison, the conventional 12 gPET and 17.5 g PET bottles (28 mm finish) are characterized byapproximately 3-4% crystallinity at the gate and several mm removed fromthe gate. This substantial improvement in the bottles fabricatedaccording to this disclosure is an unexpected result of the designparameters set out herein.

Example 8 Comparison of Shelf Life of Disclosed Small Bottles with SameWeight and Equivalent Usable Weight Bottles with 28 mm Openings

The table below sets out the measured shelf life of disclosed smallbottles from Examples 3-5, and compares them to the estimated shelf life(M-RULE ®) of the same weight bottle with a 28 mm opening, and that ofan equivalent useable weight bottle with a 28 mm opening. Shelf life canbe seen to improve from about 29% to about 35% in the inventive bottlesas compared to the shelf life estimated in conventional bottles.

TABLE 15 Shelf Life Analysis and comparison for containers according tothis disclosure. M-RULE ® Model Prediction Bottle with 22 mm Equivalent% Improvement Finish - Shelf life Same weight useable weight in Shelflife over Bottle Size & Measured using bottle with 28 mm bottle with 28mm equivalent Weight FTIR Opening Opening Bottle 200 mL/8.3 g 41 days 17days 31 days 32.2% (10 days) Example 3 200 mL/9.3 g 54 days 24 days 38days 42.1% (16 days) Example 4 250 mL/9.3 g 50 days 23 days 38 days31.6% (12 days) Example 5 250 mL/10.3 g 56 days 31 days 45 days 24.4%(11 days) Example 6

Example 8 Comparison of Shelf Life versus Bottle Weight for 22 mm FinishBottles versus 28 mm Finish Bottles at Different Temperatures

FIG. 6 plots the measured shelf life of small PET bottles versus bottleweights (8.0, 9.0, and 10.0 grams) for bottles having a 22 mm finishfabricated according to this disclosure, at 22° C. (▴) and at 38° C.(×). These shelf life measurements are compared in FIG. 6 to themeasured shelf life of larger PET bottles versus bottle weights (12.0grams and above) for bottles having a conventional 28 mm finish(M-RULE®), also at 22° C. (▴) and at 38° C. (▪).

These data demonstrate that for small CSD packages (generally less than300 mL), prior to this disclosure, it was not known how to make apackage having a useful shelf life of 45 days or greater, using about 12grams or less of monolayer (or multilayer) PET only. The FIG. 6 plotshows the measured shelf life for 28 mm finish containers at 22° C. (♦)and at 38° C. (▪), demonstrating that prior art data shows it is notpossible to make less than 12 grams CSD bottle having 45 days or longershelf life using monolayer or multilayer PET only.

As demonstrated in the examples and data in this disclosure, using adesigned bottle with neck finish less than or about 25 mm and/or preformdiameters less than or about 15 mm, for example, bottles with a 22 mmneck finish from a preform with a diameter less than 15 mm, bottles at9.3 grams weight can be fabricated having a shelf life of greater thanor about 50 days.

Furthermore, from the FIG. 6 chart, the shelf life performance of CSDpackages in higher temperature environments, as would be encountered inmany countries around the globe, particularly tropical and sub-tropicalregions, decrease significantly faster than at lower temperatures.Specifically, the M-RULE® predictive model based upon the prior artdemonstrates that high temperature performance decreased 57% from 22° C.to 38° C., while the shelf life of CSD packages according to thisdisclosure decreased only 54%, based on the slope reduction.

It has further been shown that a CSD bottle can be prepared comprising amonolayer or multilayer of PET, having a shelf life in days (y) ofgreater than or about the shelf life using the following formula:y=(6.1×x)−25, wherein y is shelf life (days), and x is the weight of thebottle (grams). This formula is based on the FIG. 6 plot and theintercept from −25 as the curve shown intercept the y axis at −11. Theshelf life has been improved over 14 days better than the best in classof 12 gram bottles shown in the graph of FIG. 6.

It has also been demonstrated that a CSD bottle can be preparedcomprising a monolayer or multilayer of PET, having a shelf life ofgreater than or about 50 days, and a resin weight equal to or less thanor about 12.0 grams; alternatively, less than or equal to or about 11.9grams; or alternatively, less than or equal to or about 11.8 grams.

Example 9 CO₂ Loss and Shelf Life Comparisons for Coated PolyesterBottles versus Control PET Bottles

For the following tests, bottles identified as “SiOx” coated were used.These containers are PET bottles that are coated with a coating process,by which the inside of the PET bottle is coated with an ultra-thinprotective layer of silicon oxide (silica), SiO_(x). This coating isshown in the data below to enable a much greater shelf life based on theCO₂ loss data provided in the tables. The comparative PET bottles areequivalent to the SiOx bottles except they do not include the SiOxsilica coating.

Other suitable coating materials include, for example, amorphous carbonor a diamond-like carbon material.

Example 10 Thermal Expansion and Creep Control Data for DisclosedBottles and Test Bottles

The following bottles were fabricated and tested in a series of thermalexpansion tests, to compare the bottle designs according to thisdisclosure with bottles having different designs. The tables that followset out the thermal expansion test results.

1. SiOx Control, 12 g, 1881 Finish, 200 mL;

2. New Design A (conventional), 8.3 g, 22 mm, 200 mL;

3. New Design B, 8.3 g, 22 mm, 200 mL;

4. New Design C, 8.3 g, 22 mm, 200 mL; and

5. New Design D, 9.3 g, 22 mm, 200 mL.

Tests were run using a CO₂ v/v of between about 3.9 to 4.2, and atemperature of between about 21-23° C. The following tables summarizethe thermal expansion and creep control data for disclosed bottles andtest bottles.

TABLE 16 Thermal Expansion Tests, Coating Control SiOx, 200 mL, 12g/1881 Finish After 48 Hours at 38° C. & Per Cent 4 Hour Cooling ChangeMax. Min. Avg. Std Dev. Height 0.40 125.09 124.23 124.74 0.45 Dia @ 90mm 2.57 52.48 52.27 52.39 0.11 Dia @ 38 mm 2.68 52.57 52.34 52.45 0.12Dia @ 20 mm 2.09 51.95 51.82 51.89 0.07 Initial CO₂ 4.5 3.9 — — FinalCO₂ 3.860 3.720 3.783 0.071

TABLE 17 Thermal Expansion Tests, New Bottle Design A (conventional),200 mL, 8.3 g/22 mm Finish After 48 Hours at 38° C. & 4 Per Cent HourCooling Change Max. Min. Avg. Std Dev. Height 0.69 143.85 143.54 143.710.16 Dia @ 90 mm 2.09 50.63 50.57 50.59 0.03 Dia @ 38 mm 7.21 47.7747.70 47.73 0.04 Dia @ 20 mm 0.92 51.46 51.43 51.44 0.02 Initial CO₂4.380 4.180 4.247 0.115 Final CO₂ 3.92 3.86 3.90 0.03

TABLE 18 Thermal Expansion Tests, New Bottle Design B, 200 mL, 8.3 g/22mm Finish After 48 Hours at 38° C. & 4 Per Cent Hour Cooling Change Max.Min. Avg. Std Dev. Height 1.13 143.45 143.35 143.40 0.07 Dia @ 90 mm3.00 50.51 50.50 50.51 0.01 Dia @ 38 mm 3.36 47.16 47.15 47.16 0.01 Dia@ 20 mm 1.02 51.44 51.42 51.43 0.01 Initial CO₂ 4.390 4.230 4.310 0.113Final CO₂ 4.01 3.98 4.00 0.02

TABLE 19 Thermal Expansion Tests, New Bottle Design C, 200 mL, 8.3 g/22mm Finish After 48 Hours at 38° C. & 4 Per Cent Hour Cooling Change Max.Min. Avg. Std Dev. Height 1.04 144.54 144.28 144.42 0.13 Dia @ 90 mm3.03 50.09 50.02 50.05 0.04 Dia @ 38 mm 4.00 48.30 48.19 48.23 0.06 Dia@ 20 mm 2.23 49.49 49.44 49.46 0.03 Initial CO₂ 4.070 4.000 4.030 0.036Final CO₂ 3.93 3.84 3.87 0.05

TABLE 20 Thermal Expansion Tests, New Bottle Design D, 250 mL, 9.3 g/22mm Finish After 48 Hours at 38° C. & 4 Per Cent Hour Cooling Change Max.Min. Avg. Std Dev. Height 1.30 147.14 146.99 147.05 0.08 Dia @ 90 mm3.82 56.14 56.05 56.10 0.05 Dia @ 38 mm 2.50 51.82 51.69 51.76 0.07 Dia@ 20 mm 0.44 55.29 55.23 55.27 0.03 Initial CO₂ 4.260 4.070 4.137 0.107Final CO₂ 3.98 3.86 3.92 0.06

Example 11 Shelf Life Studies With and Without Coatings for VariousBottles

This example, along with FIG. 12, illustrates and compares the WeightDistribution Efficiency (WDE) for a 250 mL (9.3 g) bottle designated asNew PET Design 3 (FIG. 12A), a 250 mL (9.5 g) bottle designated as NewPET Design 4 (FIG. 12B), and a 300 mL (9.6 g) bottle designated as NewPET Design 2 (FIG. 12C). Performance data are provided in the tablebelow, along with data for a 250 mL new bottle, showing coated anduncoated performance data with respect to WDE. FIG. 12 illustrates theWDE data. As seen in the data, there is a correlation between WDE, FT-IRand creep (thermal stability) performance, even with higher availableweight performance degradation due to the shape and design change.

The data illustrate that with creep less than 4% on the PET new designthere is unexpectedly high shelf life increase with the coating. Withcreep higher than 4% on the New PET Design 4 container we can see thatthe shelf life with coating is also higher but not as high as on the NewPET Design 3. Data also shows that the New PET Design 3 has much highershelf life at ambient temperatures than the New PET Design 2. Forexample, for the 300 ml New PET Design 3, the shelf life is fairly low,likely because of lower side wall thickness and slightly less optimizedWDE, as shown in FIG. 12.

TABLE 22 Shelf life, thermal stability, and related data for variousbottles Variable Descriptions Storage Bottle condition Closure Designbottle size Type Fill condition (Temp/RH) Type Contour 250 mL Controldry ice 22 C./50% RH Standard PET Contour 250 mL SiOx dry ice 22 C./50%RH Standard Std 15.6 g/200 mL  Control dry ice/3 g 22 C./50% RH StandardPET H2O Std 15.6 g/200 mL  SiOx dry ice/3 g 22 C./50% RH Standard H2OStd 15.6 g/200 mL  Control dry ice/3 g 22 C./50% RH epoxy over PET H2Ocoat Std 15.6 g/200 mL  SiOx dry ice/3 g 22 C./50% RH epoxy over H2Ocoat Std 15.6 g/200 mL  Control dry ice/3 g 22 C./50% RH induction PETH2O seal Std 15.6 g/200 mL  SiOx dry ice/3 g 22 C./50% RH induction H2Oseal Std 15.6 g/200 mL  Control dry ice/3 g 38 C./85% RH Standard PETH2O Std 15.6 g/200 mL  SiOx dry ice/3 g 38 C./85% RH Standard H2O Std15.6 g/200 mL  Control dry ice/3 g 38 C./85% RH epoxy over PET H2O coatStd 15.6 g/200 mL  SiOx dry ice/3 g 38 C./85% RH epoxy over H2O coat Std15.6 g/200 mL  Control dry ice/3 g 38 C./85% RH induction PET H2O sealStd 15.6 g/200 mL  SiOx dry ice/3 g 38 C./85% RH induction H2O seal New8.3 g/200 mL Control dry ice/3 g 22 C./50% RH Standard PET H2O New 8.3g/200 mL SiOx dry ice/3 g 22 C./50% RH Standard H2O New 8.3 g/200 mL DLCdry ice/3 g 22 C./50% RH Standard H2O New 8.3 g/200 mL Control dry ice/3g 38 C./85% RH Standard PET H2O New 8.3 g/200 mL SiOx dry ice/3 g 38C./85% RH Standard H2O New 9.3 g/250 mL Control dry ice/3 g 22 C./50% RHStandard PET H2O New 9.3 g/250 mL SiOx dry ice/3 g 22 C./50% RH StandardH2O New 9.3 g/250 mL DLC dry ice/3 g 22 C./50% RH Standard H2O New 9.3g/250 mL Control dry ice/3 g 38 C./85% RH Standard PET H2O New 9.3 g/250mL SiOx dry ice/3 g 38 C./85% RH Standard H2O New 9.3 g/250 mL DLC dryice/3 g 38 C./85% RH Standard H2O New 9.5 g/250 mL Control dry ice/3 g22 C./50% RH Standard PET H2O New 9.5 g/250 mL SiOx dry ice/3 g 22C./50% RH Standard H2O New 9.5 g/250 mL Control dry ice/3 g 38 C./85% RHStandard PET H2O New 9.5 g/250 mL SiOx dry ice/3 g 38 C./85% RH StandardH2O New 9.6 g/250 mL Control dry ice/3 g 22 C./50% RH Standard PET H2ONew 9.6 g/250 mL SiOx dry ice/3 g 22 C./50% RH Standard H2O New 9.6g/250 mL Control dry ice/3 g 38 C./85% RH Standard PET H2O New 9.6 g/250mL SiOx dry ice/3 g 38 C./85% RH Standard H2O New 9.95 g/300 mL  Controldry ice/3 g 22 C./50% RH Standard PET H2O New 9.95 g/300 mL  SiOx dryice/3 g 22 C./50% RH Standard H2O New 9.95 g/300 mL  Control dry ice/3 g38 C./85% RH Standard PET H2O New 9.95 g/300 mL  SiOx dry ice/3 g 38C./85% RH Standard H2O FTIR Outputs FTIR CO2 Variable DescriptionsThermal Stability Thermal loss Shelf life SIF (Shelf Life Design (labelpanel) Stability (pinch) (% loss/week) (days) Improvement) Contour 3.2446 Contour 2.40% 11.30% 1.07 140 3.0 Std 1.81 74 Std 1.60% 3.60% 0.61240 3.2 Std 1.72 78 Std 0.46 309 4.0 Std 1.57 84 Std 0.29 496 5.9 Std3.67 31 Std 1.60% 3.60% 2.50 63 2.0 Std 3.31 34 Std 2.23 69 2.1 Std 2.8739 Std 1.81 84 2.1 New 1.86% 3.14% 3.57 42 New 0.45 330 7.9 New 0.46 3247.7 New 1.86% 3.14% 7.13 21 New 1.01 149 7.1 New 2.16% 3.38% 3.00 50 New0.39 383 7.7 New 0.31 477 9.5 New 2.16% 3.38% 6.24 24 New 0.95 158 6.6New 1.42 106 4.4 New 2.95% 6.96% 3.19 47 New 0.53 281 6.0 New 2.95%6.96% 6.24 24 New 1.50 100 4.2 New 2.17% 3.45% 3.40 44 New New 2.17%3.45% 6.24 24 New New 1.70% 3.85% 3.48 43 New New 1.70% 3.85% 6.51 23New

Example 12 Creep Studies

The results from a creep study are illustrated in FIG. 10, in which aplot of creep ratio (%) versus time (days) for a 250 mL inventive bottleis provided, showing the significantly improved creep ratio as comparedto the conventional contour bottle illustrated in FIG. 11. FIG. 11illustrates the results from a comparative creep study, by providing aplot of creep ratio (%) versus time (days) for a 500 mL conventionalcontour bottle.

The disclosures of various publications may be referenced throughoutthis specification, which are hereby incorporated by reference inpertinent part in order to more fully describe the state of the art towhich the disclosed subject matter pertains. To the extent that anydefinition or usage provided by any document incorporated herein byreference conflicts with the definition or usage provided herein, thedefinition or usage provided herein controls.

Throughout the specification and claims, the word “comprise” andvariations of the word, such as “comprising” and “comprises,” means“including but not limited to,” and is not intended to exclude, forexample, other additives, components, elements, or steps. While methodsand features are described in terms of “comprising” various steps orcomponents, these methods and features can also “consist essentially of”or “consist of” the various steps or components.

Unless indicated otherwise, when a range of any type is disclosed orclaimed, for example a range of the percentages, WDEs, diameters,weights, and the like, it is intended to disclose or claim individuallyeach possible number that such a range could reasonably encompass,including any sub-ranges or combinations of sub-ranges encompassedtherein. When describing a range of measurements such as these, everypossible number that such a range could reasonably encompass can, forexample, refer to values within the range with one significant figuremore than is present in the end points of a range, or refer to valueswithin the range with the same number of significant figures as the endpoint with the most significant figures, as the context indicates orpermits. For example, when describing a range of percentages such asfrom 85% to 95%, it is understood that this disclosure is intended toencompass each of 85%, 86%, 87%, 88%, 89%, 90%, 91%, 92%, 93%, 94%, and95%, as well as any ranges, sub-ranges, and combinations of sub-rangesencompassed therein. Applicants' intent is that these two methods ofdescribing the range are interchangeable. Accordingly, Applicantsreserve the right to proviso out or exclude any individual members ofany such group, including any sub-ranges or combinations of sub-rangeswithin the group, if for any reason Applicants choose to claim less thanthe full measure of the disclosure, for example, to account for areference that Applicants are unaware of at the time of the filing ofthe application.

Values or ranges may be expressed herein as “about”, from “about” oneparticular value, and/or to “about” another particular value. When suchvalues or ranges are expressed, other embodiments disclosed include thespecific value recited, from the one particular value, and/or to theother particular value. Similarly, when values are expressed asapproximations, by use of the antecedent “about,” it will be understoodthat the particular value forms another embodiment. It will be furtherunderstood that there are a number of values disclosed herein, and thateach value is also herein disclosed as “about” that particular value inaddition to the value itself. In aspects, “about” can be used to meanwithin 10% of the recited value, within 5% of the recited value, orwithin 2% of the recited value.

In any application before the United States Patent and Trademark Office,the Abstract of this application is provided for the purpose ofsatisfying the requirements of 37 C.F.R. §1.72 and the purpose stated in37 C.F.R. §1.72(b) “to enable the United States Patent and TrademarkOffice and the public generally to determine quickly from a cursoryinspection the nature and gist of the technical disclosure.” Therefore,the Abstract of this application is not intended to be used to construethe scope of the claims or to limit the scope of the subject matter thatis disclosed herein. Moreover, any headings that are employed herein arealso not intended to be used to construe the scope of the claims or tolimit the scope of the subject matter that is disclosed herein. Any useof the past tense to describe an example otherwise indicated asconstructive or prophetic is not intended to reflect that theconstructive or prophetic example has actually been carried out.

Those skilled in the art will readily appreciate that many modificationsare possible in the exemplary embodiments disclosed herein withoutmaterially departing from the novel teachings and advantages accordingto this disclosure. Accordingly, all such modifications and equivalentsare intended to be included within the scope of this disclosure asdefined in the following claims. Therefore, it is to be understood thatresort can be had to various other aspects, embodiments, modifications,and equivalents thereof which, after reading the description herein, maysuggest themselves to one of ordinary skill in the art without departingfrom the spirit of the present disclosure or the scope of the appendedclaims.

Applicants reserve the right to proviso out any selection, feature,range, element, or aspect, for example, to limit the scope of any claimto account for a prior disclosure of which Applicants may be unaware.

The following numbered aspects of this disclosure are provided, whichstate various attributes, features, and embodiments of the presentinvention both independently, or in any combination when the contextallows. That is, as the context allows, any single numbered aspect andany combination of the following numbered aspects provide variousattributes, features, and embodiments of the present disclosure.

1. A Carbonated Soft Drink (CSD) PET container or bottle, wherein thecontainer or bottle is uncoated (optionally weighing less than or about13 g), wherein the difference between area distribution (%) and weightdistribution (%) in the base section (pressure resistant base) is lessthan or about 8%, or alternatively, less than or about 5%.

2. A CSD PET container wherein the difference between area distribution(%) and weight distribution (%) in the shoulder section (defined as the“top” section of FIG. 3) is less than 8%, or alternatively, less than5%.

3. A CSD PET container wherein the sectional area to weight ratio (A/W,cm²/g) for any given section is within 25% of the overall surface areato weight (excluding finish) ratio, or alternatively, within 15% of theoverall ratio. In this aspect, for example, individual sections i can bedetermined by dividing the container into n total sections according toMethod A (FIG. 7). Typically, the number of sections n can be 3, 4, 5,6, 7, or 8; more typically, n can be 4, 5, or 6; more typically still, ncan be 5.

4. A container for CSDs which simultaneously maintains the ratio of thefinish weight to total bottle weight at 25% or less, when the openingsize is less than 19 mm.

5. A CSD PET container having an opening size (I diameter) less than 19mm, or alternatively, less than 17 mm.

6. A CSD PET container having a shelf life (3.3 carbonation volume atend of shelf life, that is, elapsed time from 4.2 to 3.3 volumes CO₂)greater than or about 40 days at 22° C.; alternatively, greater than orabout 45 days at 22° C.; or alternatively, greater than or about 50 daysat 22° C.

7. A CSD PET container having an opening less than or about 19 mm, andhaving a shelf life (3.3 carbonation volume at end of shelf life, thatis, elapsed time from 4.2 to 3.3 volumes CO₂) greater than or about 40days at 22° C.; alternatively, greater than or about 45 days at 22° C.;or alternatively, greater than or about 50 days at 22° C.

8. A CSD PET container having an average side wall thickness greaterthan or about 0.20 mm; or alternatively, greater than or about 0.25 mm.

9. A CSD PET container having a thickness ratio in the shoulder(measured 5 mm under the support ring) to the side wall less than orabout 2.0 ; or alternatively, less than or about 1.5.

10. A CSD PET container having a base thickness ratio (thicknessmeasured at Gate to thickness measured 5 mm from gate) of less than orabout 4; or alternatively, less than or about 3.

11. A small size container (less than or about 250 mL) for carbonatedsoft drinks having a 17 mm opening size (inner diameter), and having ashelf life that is at least about 20% greater than a correspondingcontainer having the equivalent useable material and a standard 28 mmfinish.

12. A small size container (less than or about 250 mL) for carbonatedsoft drinks having a weight distribution efficiency (WDE) greater thanor about 95%; alternatively, greater than or about 96%; alternatively,greater than or about 97%; or alternatively, greater than or about 98%.

13. A container for carbonated soft drinks having a weight distributionefficiency (WDE) greater than or about 97%, wherein the opening size(inner diameter) is about 22 mm or less; alternatively, about 21 mm orless; alternatively, about 20 mm or less; or alternatively, about 19 mmor less.

14. A small size container (less than or about 250 mL) having a highercrystallinity (>9%) and orientation (Trans content >70%) in the basearea adjacent to the gate (5-15 mm distance from gate) as compared tocontainers made with standard 28 mm finish.

15. A preform for manufacturing carbonated soft drink containers havingan end cap weight of less than or about 0.8 g.

16. A preform for manufacturing carbonated soft drink containers havingless than or about 250 mL nominal volume and a preform end cap diameterless than or about 17 mm.

17. A preform for manufacturing carbonated soft drink containers fromabout 250 mL to about 400 mL nominal volume and a preform end capdiameter less than or about 18 mm.

18. A preform for manufacturing carbonated soft drink containers havingless than or about 400 mL nominal volume and a finish ID/preform ODratio from about 0.90 to about 1.20.

19. A preform for manufacturing carbonated soft drink containers or acontainer as disclosed herein, further comprising a material selectedfrom nylon MXD6, a nylon blend comprising nylon MXD6, a polyethylenenaphthalate (PEN)/PET co-polymer, a PEN and PET blend, a poly GlycolicAcid (PGA), poly(ethylene furan-2,5-dicarboxylate) (PEF), and PET blend.

20. A preform for manufacturing carbonated soft drink containers or acontainer as disclosed herein, further comprising an additive selectedfrom a nucleating additive, a chain branching agent, or a combinationthereof.

21. A CSD bottle comprising a monolayer or multilayer of PET, having ashelf life of greater than or about 50 days, and a resin weight equal toor less than or about 12.0 grams; alternatively, less than or about 11.9grams; or ; alternatively, less than or about 11.8 grams.

22. A CSD bottle comprising a monolayer or multilayer of PET, having ashelf life in days (y) of greater than or equal to the shelf lifepredicted using the following formula: y=(6.1×x)−25, wherein y is shelflife (days), and x is the weight of the bottle (grams).

The following further aspects of this disclosure are provided, which setout additional attributes, features, and embodiments of the presentinvention both independently, or in any combination when the contextallows. That is, as the context allows, any single numbered aspect andany combination of the following numbered aspects provide variousattributes, features, and embodiments of the present disclosure.

1. A preform for a carbonated soft drink (CSD) container having aninternal surface and an external surface, the preform comprising

-   -   a) a polymer monolayer or multilayer;    -   b) a neck finish less than or about 25 mm (T dimension); and    -   c) a preform outside body diameter (OD) less than or about 19        mm;

wherein the preform weighs less than or about 13 g, the preformcomprises or is absent an internal and/or an external gas barriercoating.

2. A preform according to the above aspect, wherein the polymercomprises a nylon, a polyester, or a polyamide.

3. A preform according to any of the above aspects as the contextallows, wherein the polymer comprises a material selected from nylonMXD6, a nylon blend comprising nylon MXD6, PET, poly(trimethylenefuran-2,5-dicarboxylate) (PTF), also called polypropylenefuran-2,5-dicarboxylate) (PPF), poly(trimethylene terephthalate) (PTT),a polyethylene naphthalate (PEN)/PET co-polymer, a PEN and PET blend, apoly Glycolic Acid (PGA), PEF, and PET blend.

4. A preform according to any of the above aspects as the contextallows, wherein the preform comprises a PET monolayer or multilayerweighing less than or about 13 g.

5. A preform according to any of the above aspects as the contextallows, wherein the preform comprises a PET monolayer or multilayerweighing less than or about 11 g.

6. A preform according to any of the above aspects as the contextallows, further comprising any one or more of the following properties:

-   -   a) a finish ID/Preform OD Ratio from about 0.90 to about 1.20;    -   b) a preform end cap diameter (mm) from about 14 mm to about 19        mm; and/or    -   c) a preform end cap weight (g) less than or about 10% of        preform weight.

7. A Carbonated Soft Drink (CSD) container prepared from any of thepreforms described in the previous aspects.

8. A Carbonated Soft Drink (CSD) container, having any one or more ofthe following properties:

-   -   a) a difference between area distribution (%) and weight        distribution (%) in the container base section, the container        shoulder section, or both the container base and the container        shoulder sections is less than 8%;    -   b) a shelf life (elapsed time from 4.2 to 3.3 volumes CO₂) of        greater than or about 271 days at 22° C.;    -   c) a sectional area to weight ratio (A/W, cm²/g) for any given        section is within 25% of the overall surface area to weight        (excluding finish) ratio;    -   d) a weight distribution efficiency (WDE) greater than or about        95%; and/or    -   e) a localized creep of less than or about 4 percent;

wherein the container comprises an internal and/or an external gasbarrier coating.

9. A Carbonated Soft Drink (CSD) container according to the aboveaspect, wherein the CSD container further comprises an internal and anexternal barrier coating material.

10. A Carbonated Soft Drink (CSD) container according to any of theabove aspects as the context allows, wherein the CSD container furthercomprises an internal and/or external barrier coating materialcomprising or selected independently from silica (SiO_(x)), amorphouscarbon, or a diamond-like carbon (DLC) material.

11. A Carbonated Soft Drink (CSD) container according to any of theabove aspects as the context allows, wherein the surface area to weightratio (sq mm/g or mm²/g) is greater than or about 2800 sq mm/g, thesurface area to weight ratio is greater than or about 3000 sq mm/g, orthe surface area to weight ratio is greater than or about 3300 sq mm/g.

12. A Carbonated Soft Drink (CSD) container according to any of theabove aspects as the context allows, wherein the surface area to weightratio (sq mm/g or mm²/g) is greater than or about 2800 sq mm/g, thesurface area to weight ratio is greater than or about 3000 sq mm/g, orthe surface area to weight ratio is greater than or about 3300 sq mm/g.

13. A Carbonated Soft Drink (CSD) container according to any of theabove aspects as the context allows, wherein the local diameter creep(diameter increase when filled with carbonated water at 4.2 Gas Volumes(GV) and conditioned at 38° C. for 24 hours) measured at any location inthe container is less than 4%, less than 3.5%, or less than 3%.

14. A Carbonated Soft Drink (CSD) container according to any of theabove aspects as the context allows, wherein the local diameter creep(diameter increase when filled with carbonated water at 4.2 Gas Volumes(GV) and conditioned at 38° C. for 24 hours) measured at any location inthe container is less than 4%, less than 3.5%, or less than 3%.

15. A Carbonated Soft Drink (CSD) container according to any of theabove aspects as the context allows, wherein overall volume expansion (%volume increase) when pressurized to 135 psi (at 22° C.) for 13 secondsis less than or about 10%, less than or about 9%, less than or about 7%,or less than or about 5.5%.

16. A Carbonated Soft Drink (CSD) container according to any of theabove aspects as the context allows, wherein the overall volumeexpansion (% volume increase) when pressurized to 135 psi (at 22° C.)for 13 seconds is less than or about 10%, less than or about 9%, lessthan or about 7%, or less than or about 5.5%.

17. A Carbonated Soft Drink (CSD) container according to any of theabove aspects as the context allows, wherein the Shelf life Improvementfactor (SIF, the ratio of shelf life for a coated and uncoated containeras measured by FT-IR at 22° C.) is more than 5.0, more than 6.0, or morethan 7.0.

18. A Carbonated Soft Drink (CSD) container according to any of theabove aspects as the context allows, wherein the Shelf life (as measuredusing FT-IR at 22° C. for a reduction in gas volume from 4.2 to 3.3) ismore than or about 350 days, alternatively, more than or about 300 days,alternatively, more than or about 270 days, or alternatively, more thanor about 250 days.

19. A Carbonated Soft Drink (CSD) container, having any two or more ofthe following properties:

-   -   a) a difference between area distribution (%) and weight        distribution (%) in the container base section, the container        shoulder section, or both the container base and the container        shoulder sections is less than 8%;    -   b) a shelf life (elapsed time from 4.2 to 3.3 volumes CO₂) of        greater than or about 271 days at 22° C.;    -   c) a sectional area to weight ratio (A/W, cm²/g) for any given        section is within 25% of the overall surface area to weight        (excluding finish) ratio;    -   d) a weight distribution efficiency (WDE) greater than or about        95%; and/or    -   e) a localized creep of less than or about 4 percent;

wherein the container comprises an internal and an external gas barriercoating.

20. A Carbonated Soft Drink (CSD) container according to any of theabove aspects as the context allows, the container further comprisingone or more of the following properties:

-   -   f) a container size less than or about 400 mL, or alternatively,        less than or about 360 mL;    -   g) a higher crystallinity (>9%) in the base area at any point        adjacent to the gate (within from 5 mm to 15 mm distance from        gate, as compared to the corresponding crystallinity (>9%) in        the base area of a container made with standard 28 mm finish;        and/or    -   h) at least 70% trans content at a distance of 5 mm from the        gate. 21. A method of improving the shelf life of a carbonated        soft drink (CSD), the method comprising:    -   a) providing a preform for a carbonated soft drink (CSD)        container, the preform comprising a PET monolayer or multilayer        weighing less than or about 13 g; a neck finish less than or        about 25 mm; and a preform diameter less than or about 19 mm;    -   b) stretch blow-molding the preform to form a CSD container; and    -   c) packaging the CSD in the stretch blow-molded CSD container.

22. A method of improving the shelf life of a carbonated soft drink(CSD) according to the above method aspect, further comprising providingthe CSD container with an internal and/or external barrier coatingmaterial after stretch blow-molding the preform to form the CSDcontainer.

23. A method of improving the shelf life of a carbonated soft drink(CSD) according to any of the above method aspects as the contextallows, wherein the preform further comprising any one or more of thefollowing properties:

-   -   a) a Finish ID/Preform OD Ratio from about 0.90 to about 1.20;    -   b) a preform end cap diameter (mm) from about 14.25 mm to about        19 mm; and/or    -   c) a preform end cap weight (g) less than 10% of preform weight.

24. A method of improving the shelf life of a carbonated soft drink(CSD) according to any of the above method aspects as the contextallows, wherein the Carbonated Soft Drink (CSD) container has any one ormore of the following properties:

-   -   a) a difference between area distribution (%) and weight        distribution (%) in the container base section, the container        shoulder section, or both the container base and the container        shoulder sections is less than 8%;    -   b) a shelf life (elapsed time from 4.2 to 3.3 volumes CO₂) of        greater than or about 41 days;    -   c) a sectional area to weight ratio (A/W, cm²/g) for any given        section is within 25% of the overall surface area to weight        (excluding finish) ratio;    -   d) a weight distribution efficiency (WDE) greater than or about        95%;    -   e) a container size less than or about 300 mL;    -   f) a higher crystallinity (>9%) in the base area at any point        adjacent to the gate (within from 5 mm to 15 mm distance from        gate, as compared to the corresponding crystallinity (>9%) in        the base area of a container made with standard 28 mm finish;        and/or    -   g) at least 70% trans content at a distance of 5 mm from the        gate.

25. A method of preparing a small, light-weight Carbonated Soft Drink(CSD) container having an improved shelf life, the method comprising:

-   -   a) providing a preform comprising a PET monolayer or multilayer        weighing less than or about 10 g, a neck finish diameter less        than or about 22 mm (T dimension), and a preform diameter less        than or about 15.75 mm;    -   b) stretch blow-molding the preform to form a Carbonated Soft        Drink (CSD) container having less than or about 300 mL volume,        or alternatively, less than or about 360 mL;

wherein the weight percentage of PET material in the preform neckstraight and the perform base are less than the corresponding weightpercentages of PET material in a conventional 28 mm finish preform.

26. A method of preparing a small, light-weight Carbonated Soft Drink(CSD) container having an improved shelf life according to the abovemethod, the method further comprising providing the CSD container withan internal and/or external barrier coating material after stretchblow-molding the preform to form the CSD container.

27. A Carbonated Soft Drink (CSD) container having an internal surfaceand an external surface, the CSD comprising

-   -   a) a polymer monolayer or multilayer;    -   b) a neck finish less than or about 25 mm (T dimension); and    -   c) an outside body diameter (OD) less than or about 19 mm;

wherein the container weighs less than or about 13 g, the containercomprises or is absent an internal and/or an external gas barriercoating.

28. A Carbonated Soft Drink (CSD) container, having any one or more ofthe following properties:

-   -   a) a difference between area distribution (%) and weight        distribution (%) in the container base section, the container        shoulder section, or both the container base and the container        shoulder sections is less than 8%;    -   b) a shelf life (elapsed time from 4.2 to 3.3 volumes CO₂) of        greater than or about 47 days at 22° C.;    -   c) a sectional area to weight ratio (A/W, cm²/g) for any given        section is within 25% of the overall surface area to weight        (excluding finish) ratio;    -   d) a weight distribution efficiency (WDE) greater than or about        95%; and/or    -   e) a localized creep of less than or about 4 percent; wherein        the container is absent an internal and/or an external gas        barrier coating.

29. A Carbonated Soft Drink (CSD) container, having any one or more ofthe following properties:

-   -   a) a difference between area distribution (%) and weight        distribution (%) in the container base section, the container        shoulder section, or both the container base and the container        shoulder sections is less than 8%;    -   b) a shelf life (elapsed time from 4.2 to 3.3 volumes CO₂) of        greater than or about 41 days at 22° C.;    -   c) a sectional area to weight ratio (A/W, cm²/g) for any given        section is within 25% of the overall surface area to weight        (excluding finish) ratio;    -   d) a weight distribution efficiency (WDE) greater than or about        95%; and/or    -   e) a localized creep of less than or about 4 percent; wherein        the container is absent an internal and/or an external gas        barrier coating.

30. A container made according to any one of method claims wherein thecontainer is placed on a shelf for retail sale.

1.-26. (canceled)
 27. A Carbonated Soft Drink (CSD) container, havingany one or more of the following properties: a) a difference betweenarea distribution (%) and weight distribution (%) in the container basesection, the container shoulder section, or both the container base andthe container shoulder sections is less than 8%; b) a shelf life(elapsed time from 4.2 to 3.3 volumes CO₂) of greater than or about 271days at 22° C.; c) a sectional area to weight ratio (A/W, cm²/g) for anygiven section is within 25% of the overall surface area to weight(excluding finish) ratio; d) a weight distribution efficiency (WDE)greater than or about 95%; and/or e) a localized creep of less than orabout 4 percent; wherein the container comprises an internal and/or anexternal gas barrier coating.
 28. A Carbonated Soft Drink (CSD)container according claim 27, wherein the CSD container furthercomprises an internal and external barrier coating material.
 29. ACarbonated Soft Drink (CSD) container according claim 27, wherein theCSD container further comprises an internal and/or external barriercoating material selected independently from silica (SiO_(x)), amorphouscarbon, or a diamond-like carbon (DLC) material.
 30. A Carbonated SoftDrink (CSD) container according claim 27, wherein the surface area toweight ratio (sq mm/g) is greater than or about 2800 sq mm/g.
 31. ACarbonated Soft Drink (CSD) container according claim 27, wherein thelocal diameter creep measured at any location in the container is lessthan 4%.
 32. A Carbonated Soft Drink (CSD) container according claim 27,wherein the overall volume expansion (% volume increase) whenpressurized to 135 psi (at 22° C.) for 13 seconds is less than or about10%.
 33. A Carbonated Soft Drink (CSD) container according claim 27,wherein the overall volume expansion (% volume increase) whenpressurized to 135 psi (at 22° C.) for 13 seconds is less than or about7%.
 34. A Carbonated Soft Drink (CSD) container according claim 27,wherein the Shelf life Improvement factor for the coated CSD is morethan 5.0 at 22° C.
 35. A Carbonated Soft Drink (CSD) container accordingclaim 27, wherein the Shelf life Improvement factor for the coated CSDis more than 4.0 at 38° C.
 36. A Carbonated Soft Drink (CSD) containeraccording claim 27, wherein the shelf life (as measured using FT-IR at22° C. for a reduction in gas volume from 4.2 to 3.3) is more than 350days.
 37. A Carbonated Soft Drink (CSD) container according claim 27,wherein the shelf life (as measured using FT-IR at 22° C. for areduction in gas volume from 4.2 to 3.3) is more than 300 days.
 38. ACarbonated Soft Drink (CSD) container according claim 27, wherein theshelf life (as measured using FT-IR at 22° C. for a reduction in gasvolume from 4.2 to 3.3) is more than 250 days.
 39. A Carbonated SoftDrink (CSD) container according to claim 27, further comprising any oneor more of the following properties: f) a container size less than orabout 400 mL; g) a higher crystallinity (>9%) in the base area at anypoint adjacent to the gate (within from 5 mm to 15 mm distance fromgate, as compared to the corresponding crystallinity (>9%) in the basearea of a container made with standard 28 mm finish; and/or h) at least70% trans content at a distance of 5 mm from the gate.
 40. A preform fora carbonated soft drink (CSD) container having an internal surface andan external surface, the preform comprising a) a polymer monolayer ormultilayer; b) a neck finish less than or about 25 mm (T dimension); andc) a preform outside body diameter (OD) less than or about 19 mm;wherein the preform weighs less than or about 13 g, the preformcomprises or is absent an internal and/or an external gas barriercoating.
 41. A preform according to claim 40, wherein the polymercomprises a nylon, a polyester, or a polyamide.
 42. A preform accordingto claim 40, wherein the polymer comprises a material selected fromnylon MXD6, a nylon blend comprising nylon MXD6, PET, poly(trimethylenefuran-2,5-dicarboxylate) (PTF), also called poly(propylenefuran-2,5-dicarboxylate) (PPF), poly(trimethylene terephthalate) (PTT),a polyethylene naphthalate (PEN)/PET co-polymer, a PEN and PET blend, apoly Glycolic Acid (PGA), PEF, and PET blend.
 43. A preform according toclaim 40, wherein the preform comprises a PET monolayer or multilayerweighing less than or about 13 g.
 44. A preform according to claim 40,wherein the preform comprises a PET monolayer or multilayer weighingless than or about 11 g.
 45. A preform according to claim 40, furthercomprising any one or more of the following properties: a) a finishID/Preform OD Ratio from about 0.90 to about 1.20; b) a preform end capdiameter (mm) from about 14 mm to about 19 mm; and/or c) a preform endcap weight (g) less than or about 10% of preform weight.
 46. A method ofimproving the shelf life of a carbonated soft drink (CSD), the methodcomprising: a) providing a preform for a carbonated soft drink (CSD)container, the preform comprising a PET monolayer or multilayer weighingless than or about 13 g; a neck finish less than or about 25 mm; and apreform diameter less than or about 19 mm; b) stretch blow-molding thepreform to form a CSD container; and c) packaging the CSD in the stretchblow-molded CSD container.
 47. A method of improving the shelf life of acarbonated soft drink (CSD) according claim 46, further comprisingproviding the CSD container with an internal and/or external barriercoating material after stretch blow-molding the preform to form the CSDcontainer.
 48. A method of improving the shelf life of a carbonated softdrink (CSD) according claim 46, wherein the preform further comprisingany one or more of the following properties: a) a Finish ID/Preform ODRatio from about 0.90 to about 1.20; b) a preform end cap diameter (mm)from about 14.25 mm to about 19 mm; and/or c) a preform end cap weight(g) less than 10% of preform weight.
 49. A method of improving the shelflife of a carbonated soft drink (CSD) according to claim 46, wherein theCarbonated Soft Drink (CSD) container has any one or more of thefollowing properties: a) a difference between area distribution (%) andweight distribution (%) in the container base section, the containershoulder section, or both the container base and the container shouldersections is less than 8%; b) a shelf life (elapsed time from 4.2 to 3.3volumes CO₂) of greater than or about 41 days at 22° C. without acoating or greater than or about 271 days at 22° C. with a coating; c) asectional area to weight ratio (A/W, cm²/g) for any given section iswithin 25% of the overall surface area to weight (excluding finish)ratio; d) a weight distribution efficiency (WDE) greater than or about95%; e) a container size less than or about 300 mL; f) a highercrystallinity (>9%) in the base area at any point adjacent to the gate(within from 5 mm to 15 mm distance from gate, as compared to thecorresponding crystallinity (>9%) in the base area of a container madewith standard 28 mm finish; and/or g) at least 70% trans content at adistance of 5 mm from the gate.
 50. A method of preparing a small,light-weight Carbonated Soft Drink (CSD) container having an improvedshelf life, the method comprising: a) providing a preform comprising aPET monolayer or multilayer weighing less than or about 10 g, a neckfinish diameter less than or about 22 mm (T dimension), and a preformdiameter less than or about 15.75 mm; b) stretch blow-molding thepreform to form a Carbonated Soft Drink (CSD) container having less thanor about 300 mL volume; wherein the weight percentage of PET material inthe preform neck straight and the perform base are less than thecorresponding weight percentages of PET material in a conventional 28 mmfinish preform.
 51. A method of preparing a small, light-weightCarbonated Soft Drink (CSD) container having an improved shelf lifeaccording to claim 50, the method further comprising providing the CSDcontainer with an internal and/or external barrier coating materialafter stretch blow-molding the preform to form the CSD container.
 52. Apackaged shelf product comprising a Carbonated Soft Drink (CSD)container according to claim 27.